John, I doubt that. Motion Bluring affects motion between different frames. If there is no motion nothing happens if Motion Bluring is applied. Nor does it if there is only one frame.But if I apply "Reduce Interlace Flicker" to a single frame event it looks exactly as if I'd done a Deinterlacing with blending fields. "Exactly" means: I proofed it having both a deinterlaced event in track one and same clip with "reduced interlaced flicker" in the track below. Preview quality is set to "Best (Full)". Now if I toggle between those two tracks preview is absolutely equal.

So to me it looks like "Reduce Interlace Flicker" uses same methods like Deinterlacing with blended fields does.

... and based on my last test I made another render test to took the render times of a deinterlacing, "Reduce Interlace Flicker" and Motion-Blur. I had a sequence of 20 seconds, a graphic (rendered to AVI before) with motion rendered it using deinterlacing, "Reduce interlace Flicker" and Motion-Bluring with the lowest value possible (length 1 field, which is rarely noticable in the result, but still quite different from "Reduce Interlace Flicker").The render times are:

>> If you want to be fair to yourself, you should take, for example, >> 3-5 (not just one) random still shots from each of the three files >> before you make a conclusion about anything.

I took that one (still) which gives the best impression of what is done to the video. I made lots of tests and at last I chose that test sequence which makes rather clear what happens if I use "Reduce Interlace Flicker".

>> Better yet, specifically look for (and hopefully find) still shots where >> the results of technique 1 differ from the results of technique 2.

That's it. I can't find one where the results differ. Anything I tested - "Reduce Interlace Flicker" always gave me same results as Deinterlacing using the blend method. Proofed after rendering on internal preview, quality set to "Best (Full)".

>> One test of 3-5 still shots would attempt to find the difference between >> deinterlacing and reduce interlace flicker. The other test would examine >> 3-5 still shots comparing the results of reduce interlace flicker to motion blur.

Exactly what I did ...

>> Comparing all three in one test confuses the issue. After all, nowhere have >> you stated that you were unsure as to the difference between deinterlacing >> and motion blur.

I don't find the results shown by the screenshots confusing. It's very clear what happens to the video. The confusing part is the fact, that all the render times differ so much. So at least both these screenshots and the render times states the very difference between "Reduce Interlace Flicker" and Motion-Blur.

The only thing I don't understand is why Deinterlacing and "Reduce Interlace Flicker" gives me same results but different render times.

>> Also, did you consider including a sample deinterlaced by the interpolate method

Sure - I tested that one too, but took no screenshots of it. Using the interpolate method for deinterlacing differs both from "Reduce Interlace Flicker" and from MotionBlur. Using my circle example the interpolated Deinterlacing eleminates one of the two fields and interpolate all the lines of one of the fields. No result what would help me understanding.

- "Reduce Interlace Flicker" is an intra-frame process (against inter-frame process of Motion-Blur).- "Reduce Interlace Flicker works by vertical blending fields in a fixed amount ("The interlace filter applies a small amount of vertical-only filtering" - quote from SonicDennis). - The very difference to the deinterlacing process is "Reduce Interlace Flicker" works even if there is no motion what makes it perfect for the use of stills (and of course another difference is deinterlacing ends in having progressive video then).